Virginia TechGovernance Minutes Archive

February 12, 1991

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Faculty Senate
February 12, 1991
32 Pamplin Hall
7:30 p.m.
Present: Senators Batie, Baumgartner, Brown, Bunce, Canestaro, Clowes,
Crittenden, deWolf, Diesenroth, Eiss, Eng, Etgen, Falkinham,
Farkas, Feret, Geyer, Hicks, Hillison, Kingston, Kriz, Marriott,
McDaniels, Miller, Murray, Parsons, Rakes, Scanlon, Simmons,
Snoke, Sorrentino, Thompson, Tideman, Price for Walker, Webster.
Absent: Senators Barker, Flick, Saunders, Ventre, Wang.
Visitors: Jane Asche Extension and Public Service
John Ashby Spectrum
D. Hasselman Materials Engineering
Roy Jones Extension and Public Service
Pamela Orcutt Classified Staff Affairs Committee
Peter Rony Chemical Engineering
1. CALL TO ORDER
Visitors were welcomed and identified to the Senate.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS
The officers met with the Provost on January 14. Topics included the
review of the library, plans for Upper Quad and backfill, Reconciliation
Committee, and, of course, budget.
The officers traveled to Richmond on January 22-23 for the annual
meeting of the Association of Virginia Colleges and Universities.
During this meeting, the Governor met with presidents, faculty senate
officers, student leaders, and others to present his views on campus
climate/civility. We also took advantage of this trip to speak with
legislators about the impact of the budget cuts on higher education.
Secretary of Education Dyke will be on campus February 27 and has
agreed to meet with the Faculty Senate while he is here. Interested
Senators and other faculty are invited to meet with him in Davidson
308, 2:30-3:30 PM.
Mr. Wayland Winstead is asking for comments on planning and the library.
April 9 will be the first meeting for new senators. Please alert your
Faculty Associations.
3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda was adopted as provided.
4. PROGRAM
Address by Patrick F. Scanlon, Faculty Senate President 1989/90
Fellow senators, I am here to present the annual report on the
accomplishments of the Faculty Senate for the academic year 1989/90.
The objectives of the Faculty Senate for the year revolved around a
theme of faculty development. More specifically, the objectives were
to:
- increase faculty involvement in University governance
- improve communication throughout the University
- involve faculty in budget deliberations
- involve faculty in leadership evaluation
- conduct forums on departmental governance and on budget development
Further objectives were to complete some "housekeeping" matters. Among
these were ratification of the Faculty Senate Constitution by the
faculty and to follow up on remaining self-study recommendations not the
least of which were discussion of the University Council function and of
departmental governance issues.
As with any endeavor there were successes and failures. Following a
precedent set by my predecessor, David Conn, I'll start with the
failures. We did not hold either forum. The forum on budget development
seemed redundant towards the end of a year where so many revisions of
the existing budget and scenarios for future budgets had to be
considered. In retrospect, the year seemed to be a prolonged seminar
on budgets. The forum on departmental governance was superseded in
part by enactment of relevant legislation and in part by distribution
of a philosophical document on departmental governance by the Provost.
There were many successes during 1989-90.
- The strong working relationships of the Faculty Senate officers
with the President and the Senior Vice-Presidents were continued.
- The Faculty Senate played its part in the selection and recruitment
of the New Senior Vice President and Provost.
- The Faculty Senate endorsed and participated heavily in the new
planning process.
- Legislation was enacted which limited the terms of department and
division leaders with accompanying provision for evaluation
procedures for those leaders.
- A Budget Advisory Committee was formed and the President selected
members from faculty nominated by the Faculty Senate.
- An increase was made in the Supplementary Grant Program Funds.
- There was improved reporting of the financial operations of such
entities as the Virginia Tech Foundation.
- There were increases in frequency of the appearance of Spectrum
(the University weekly newspaper). Some issues now appear during
summer break. However, aspects of communication have been hampered
by reduction of the mail service to once-a-day deliveries. There is
less than total satisfaction with the effectiveness of Spectrum
itself as a means of serving the University community.
- In conjunction with the Student Government Association, the Faculty
Senate produced a report on Academic Advising.
- A major success during the year was the ratification of the new
Faculty Senate Constitution by the Faculty - the efforts of Jack
Dudley were most appreciated.
- The Faculty Senate continues to work on the University Council
Constitution. Among the efforts being stressed are that the
Constitution be philosophically sound, that such items as planning
and budget be addressed in the governance system, and that there
be a reporting system for the many committees which exist on campus.
- The Faculty Senate met with the Student Government Association
officers and the officers of the Graduate Student Assembly regularly
and supported them in their reaching their objectives when
appropriate. The Faculty Senate also supported the Classified Staff
in their formation of an organization.
There is much work to be continued.
- The University Council Constitution revision is proving to be a
formidable task.
- Means have to be found to cope with budget cutbacks.
- Data from a survey conducted by Art Snoke et al. to determine faculty
perceptions of their working resources needs will be interpreted in
the near future.
Conclusions
The successes listed above are real indeed.
- Faculty input in planning and budget matters were welcomed and proved
effective.
- Communications are better between faculty leaders and senior
administrators--means of communication with the general faculty
need improvement.
- The Faculty knows more about budget matters--probably to its chagrin.
- Faculty seem to have done a remarkable job of coping with the
effects of budget setbacks and in husbanding collective morale.
There are major concerns among faculty about many aspects of the
future of the University. The collective ability to instruct, to
conduct scholarship, and to serve has been compromised. Faculty are
generally very concerned about the undergraduate instruction
mission, about their ability to conduct pro bono research and
scholarship, to continue as competitors in contract research, to
support a competitive graduate program, and to provide a high level
of public service. Further, they are concerned about the ability of
the University to retain faculty.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the conscientious and hard working President and
Senior Vice-Presidents of the University for their openness in dealing
with the Faculty Senate officers. They inspire confidence in the future
of the University. They were open to faculty opinions and had respect
for faculty involvement in governance. The members of the Faculty
Senate worked hard and represented their constituencies well. The
other officers Ludeman Eng and Rosemary Goss were perceptive,
supportive, and hard working. The cabinet was inspiring and effective.
The fine officers serving the Senate this year will continue the
progress made by the Senate.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of January 8 were approved subject to correction of several
typing errors. Minutes of Senate Cabinet were approved.
6. COUNCIL, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
UNIVERSITY COUNCIL--Senator Hillison--5 Feb. 91
The reading has been held on a CUS proposal permitting students on
academic probation may enroll in either the following summer session
or the fall session.
The sexual harassment policy was deferred.
The words sexual orientation were added to the Virginia Tech Equal
Opportunity/Affirmative Action statement.
COMMISSION ON EXTENSION--Senator Marriott--5 Feb. 91
Gary Hooper reported on planned activities of the proposed Professional
Practices Institute and appealed for support of the Commission on
Extension for this organization.
Two presentations on extension/public service projects were given.
Jerry Robinson reported on the College of Business goal attainment
plans for faculty service. A report on community service in Appomattox
County was given by Shirley Walton. A highlight of this program is the
involvement of youth in the decision making process of local government,
schools, churches and other leadership organizations.
The youth are required to give back 25 hours service to the community
for this leadership training.
Norman Marriott presented a resolution on the creation of an Academy
for Public Service Excellence. The Commission voted to send this
resolution through the governance process. A draft policy statement on
the role of the commission was also reviewed.
The Commission voted to request Jim Wolfe to arrange for proposed
changes in the faculty handbook to be put on the Commission of Faculty
Affairs agenda. A brief update on the proposed furloughs of state
employees was given by Charles Steger.
COMMISSION ON FACULTY AFFAIRS--Senator Kriz--18 Jan. 91
Involuntary Transfer of Faculty: During the discussion of involuntary
transfer of faculty the following points were raised.
1) Though the definition of transfer could include a change in job
responsibilities, the Commission limited its discussion to a
policy for involuntary transfer of geographical location.
2) Involuntary transfers could be the consequence of disciplinary
actions or programmatic changes. The former could be handled
through the University's grievance policy. In the latter, there
would be no evidence that a transfer involved disciplinary
issues. The grievance policy could be changed to include
the latter as grievable issues.
3) The faculty member's first and second level administrators
should agree to the necessity of an involuntary transfer. A
faculty member would be notified by their immediate supervisor
and if the proposed transfer would be involuntary, the second
level administrator would need to review and agree to the
necessity of the transfer.
4) Both tenured and untenured faculty members should covered by an
involuntary transfer policy. The period of time between
notifying an individual of a transfer and the effective date
of the transfer should follow a language concerning notification
of non-reappointment in the Faculty Handbook (Section 2.9.3).
5) Involuntarily transferred faculty members should be
compensated. Expenses subject to compensation should at
least include those moving expenses recognized by the
Internal Revenue Service.
6) A policy for involuntary transfer of faculty should be
placed in Section 2.12 of the Faculty Handbook (Terms of
Appointment).
Definition of "Contract" for Faculty: The Provost identified an
individual faculty member's letter of appointment and the Faculty
Handbook as documents which could be used to describe the nature of
the relationship between a faculty member and the University.
COMMISSION ON GRADUATE STUDIES--Senator Snoke--16 Jan., 6 Feb. 91
The CGS met twice since the last Senate meeting, on 16 January
and 6 February 1991. Mostly groundwork was laid on issues for which
decisions will be made at future meetings. These include the proposal
for the Virginia Tech Professional Practices Institute, a review of
the policy regarding minimum required TOEFL scores for admission, and
a draft of a Statement of Rights and Responsibilities of Graduate
Students.
The "I" grade was discussed at both meetings. At the 16
January meeting the Commission endorsed the Senate resolution that
states that the "I" grade should not affect the QCA at either the
undergraduate or graduate level. (While there is apparent unanimity
that this should be the case for graduate students, some members
of the commission were hesitant to dictate how undergraduates
should be treated.) At the 6 February meeting the point was made
that there is considerable abuse by faculty in the awarding of "I"
grades. If the Senate resolution survives CUS, it should be revised
to emphasize the need to enforce strictly the policies regarding the
awarding and removal of the "I" grade.
Two issues that are to be on the agenda of the next meeting
but which are timely and deserve comments are the implications of
furloughs on graduate students on support and graduate students
and taxes.
If there are to be furloughs on, say, a 1 day per month
basis for several months, how does this affect faculty on 9 month
appointments (my logic suggests that such employees should have
only 3/4 the numbers of days)? TAs for 2 semesters or who have
appointments for only one semester or for one summer session or ... ?
RAs who are not paid by state funds? students on hourly wages?
Taxes
Last year graduate students on support were encouraged to
deduct tuition on their income tax returns. This year they are
not encouraged to do so. The difference is that last year the
University was in the process of putting in place a tuition
remission process so that tuition paid by students on support
would never appear on their W2 forms. If a student who claimed a
deduction were challenged, the University would support him or her.
Since then, several problems with the tuition remission policy have
come to the attention of the administration. Although there is the
hope that things can be worked out in the future, the University
is not willing to support challenges to students this year. It is
my understanding that the University at present is "neutral" in
that it will officially neither encourage nor discourage students
from applying for a tax deduction. If the student is challenged
by the IRS, the student is on his/her own.
COMMISSION ON RESEARCH--Senator Bunce--23 Jan. 91
1. Special Faculty Appointments.
Five categories were defined consisting of Research Associate,
Senior Research Associate, Postdoctoral Associate, Research
Scientist, and Senior Research Scientist. Definitions of each rank
are attached. The designation of these ranks is intended to
promote and expedite the research activities of the University.
These are all faculty appointments and normal processes for
advertising, interviewing and selection must be followed. After
discussion and some changes in wording, the document was
approved. (Definitions are attached to minutes.)
2. Revised Intellectual Property Policy.
The new policy document was discussed and approved. The new
policy incorporates changes in three areas. The revised policy
makes a distinction between the results of traditional scholarship,
such as textbooks and the novel results of research such as products,
processes, machines, software, biological technology and the like
in which the University can exercise ownership.
3. Professional Practices Institute (PPI).
The creation of this entity would provide an institutional
format under which faculty could engage in directed projects
requiring the application of professional expertise but which fall
outside the present forms of research grants and contracts.
These projects would be of limited objectives and duration. The
Institute would be funded 100% from its own overhead. While such
an Institute may be perceived as being in conflict with private
industry, the proposal is supported by the private sector.
They see it as a means for rapid solution of specific and limited
problems. The Waste Policy Institute would probably be one of the
first groups to be incorporated into the PPI. After discussion,
the motion to approve was tabled and will be taken up at the next
meeting.
COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS--Senator Miller--17 Jan., 7 Feb. 91
17 Jan.
Much of the meeting was concerned with proposed changes in the
governance system and in the composition and structure of CSA. By
resolution the CSA rejected suggestions of a noticeably smaller
Commission with larger graduate and undergraduate committees
reporting to it. It went on record supporting a unitary CSA a bit
larger than the present one, with increased graduate student
representatives, to include a representative from Master's
candidates and one from doctoral students.
A motion providing for stipends for eight student leaders, to be
paid $2,250 for remaining in Blacksburg over the summer, was made
and adopted. The student leaders are those of the SGA, the
Graduate Student Assembly, the Residence Hall Federation, the
(undergraduate) Honor System, the Virginia Tech Union, the
Interfraternity Council, the Panhellenic Council, the Black
Organizations Council, and the Corps of Cadets. A motion to
remove the heads of the fraternity and sorority groups from this
list was defeated.
Guidelines for Security at Student Events were endorsed. They
prescribe criteria for requiring security officers at an event,
and call for an increase in University Police staffing.
7 Feb.
The Commission noted with pleasure the adoption of the expanded
non-discrimination resolution it had forwarded from the SGA.
Commission members were brought up to date on the many capital
projects underway or being planned in the student affairs area,
including the rebuilding of Squires (still expected to be ready
for Fall, 1991), the new dormitory to be built behind the gym (270
beds, final plans nearly complete), renovations of Pritchard Hall,
extensive external work in the Prairie Quad open (to begin this
Spring), the continuing very extensive remodeling of Owens dining
hall (work on A and C rooms will begin in late Spring), design
work for the large commuter parking lot (drainage first, then
paving, shuttle buses will be needed when the lot is closed for
paving), and consideration of alternatives for parking at Squires.
There was fairly extensive discussion of the Student Media Board
and the general question of the connection of the various student
publications and stations to student government and to the
university as a whole. An subcommittee of CSA will try to
sort out the distinct issues in this area and make some
recommendations at a later date.
The rules governing participation in 'student' organizations by
non-students were reviewed and generally found both reasonable and
flexible.
A resolution from the SGA urging approval of Virginia Senate bill
778, which would set a referendum on construction bonds (including
a number of projects at Virginia Tech) was endorsed with some
abstentions. (No one expressed opposition but some doubted the
propriety of an organ of the University's governance system
endorsing an appeal to the legislature.)
Senators expressed concern over outside participation in student
activities and potential liability for faculty advisors. Are
faculty adequately protected? It was suggested that faculty have
letters of appointment from the University or Department as
advisors and that the handbook be changed to include appropriate
protection.
COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES--Senator Etgen--14 Jan., 28 Jan.,
14 Feb. 91
14 Jan.
The faculty senate resolution concerning "Review of Special
Admissions Procedures" passed by the faculty senate on 2-9-88 and
tabled by C.U.S. on 3-14-88 was removed from the table and passed
by C.U.S.
The faculty senate resolution concerning "Monitoring Academic
Success of Scholarship Athletes" passed by the faculty senate 2-9-88
and tabled by C.U.S. on 3-14-88 was removed from the table and
defeated. Most C.U.S. members felt the purpose of the resolution
had already been achieved.
The course criteria report passed with record reading for
revised math minor requirements, MGT and HNF checklists, a Program
of Study for students seeking to graduate "In Honors," the addition
of the following new courses: CHEM 1064; CS 2064, 4004, 4304;
COMM 2044, 4364; BIOL 4774; MGT 3304, 3334, 3344, 4334; and
dropping COMM 3044, BIOL 4774, MGT 4354, EE 4344, 4384; and
changing EDHL 2564 to P-F only.
A resolution temporarily (until Feb. 18) rescinding the
moratorium on core courses passed. Implementation will allow
expansion of humanities core courses beginning fall 1991.
28 Jan.
Resolution 90-91 D, Policy Pertaining to Internal Transfer
of Students, was presented for first reading and discussed. The
resolution defined a procedure for approval of restriction of
internal transfers of students to a program. Steps include
approval by department/program, college, 30-day review, Course
Criteria Committee of the C.U.S., C.U.S., and University Council.
Continuation of the restriction would depend on rejustification
via this same procedure every four years.
Problems with "I" grades for students called to active duty
were discussed and colleges were encouraged to identify these
students and be prepared to assist them with re-admission to the
university.
Options for Outdoor Recreation (F&W), Physical Therapy (BIOL),
and CHEM degree checksheets 1992 and later were presented for first
reading. The following new or revised courses were also presented
for first reading. The following new or revised courses also were
presented for first reading: HIST 4145, 4146 (new); WS 4114
(Feminist Theory, revised); GEOL 3404 (revised); COMM 3184 (revised
and concurrent drop of COMM 3185 & 3186), COMM 4145, 4146 (new), and
EE 3105-3106 (revised).
11 Feb.
Resolution 90-91 D concerning procedure of restriction of
internal transfers was amended to include approval of the college
curriculum committee and the college dean to better assess the
impact on other college programs and resource allocation. The
amendment and amended resolution passed.
A revised procedure for special admissions was presented as
an operating procedure for questions and comments. Major changes
in the procedure were to increase the membership of the Admissions
Advisory Committee from five to six. Currently, the committee
consists of the Director of Admissions (non-voting), a
representative the appealing department, an assistant or associate
dean, and two faculty members, one a faculty senate representative
on the C.U.S.. The proposed committee would be composed of the
Dean of Admissions (non-voting), a member of the appealing
department (non-voting), one assistant or associate dean, and
three faculty members, one a faculty senate representative on the
C.U.S.
A restriction of 1.0 percent of the entering class replaced
the former restriction of 0.5 percent. During the discussion, it
was emphasized that the "Procedures of Special Admission" was an
operating procedure, not an academic policy.
All options, new, revised, and dropped courses presented for
first reading on Jan. 28 were presented for second reading and
approval. Presented for first reading were: checksheets for Agric.
Technology and CSES minor; new course HIDM 1104; revised courses
HIDM 1114, EE 3305-3306, 3254, 3714, 4205-4206, and 4334; dropped
courses CSES 3304, EE 3364 and 4344.
Senators undertook an extended discussion on procedure and policy
relating to admissions. The following points were made.
Admissions is an academic issue and should be a part of the
governance system.
How do faculty have input into admission standards?
We do not vote on entrance requirements, we do not have essays as
an admission requirement. Setting of admissions procedures is a
serious matter of faculty obligation and should not be outside the
governance procedure.
President Eng added the issue to new business for the Senate.
ATHLETIC COMMITTEE--Senator Baumgartner--7 Feb. 91
Mr. Bourne reported on Tech's new affiliation with the Big East
Conference in football. He stated that the demise of the Metro
Conference appeared likely, but the athletic Department didn't
regard that as a major setback for Tech. The Atlantic Ten
Conference would appear to be the best possibility for basketball,
since 4 members of it are also in the Big East football conference.
On the 23 football recruits who have signed, three still need to
meet the minimum SAT scores, but they were very close and are
waiting for their scores from the January exam.
A report on the NCAA convention of last month revealed that Tech
would be little affected by the new limits on number of coaches
for all sports. Only football would lose an assistant coach. The
new limits on number of scholarships would affect football,
basketball, and baseball.
A proposal that the Committee request the provost to initiate a
change in admissions requirements, counting Earth Science as a lab
science and allowing the taking of Algebra II after admission but
before taking any courses in the math core requirements, was
discussed and returned to the subcommittee for rewriting. The
number of student-athletes who are on the AD's honor roll (3.0 or
better) reached 131 last semester. Of the 530 students involved
in athletics, only one was deemed as not making "progress to
degree" in core requirements.
Senators: i) How many student's on the AD's honor roll were
"scholarship" athletes? ANS. Not available.
ii) Can you explain prop. 48 and why we do not accept
Prop. 48 athletes? ANS. We have a higher SAT standard
than Prop. 48.
iii) Is there a fee to join new football conference?
ANS. No fee to join, but there is a "hefty" fee to get out.
BUILDING COMMITTEE--Senator Wang--22 Jan. 91
The primary purpose of the meeting was to review the University's
1992-94 capital outlay budget submission which would be presented
to the Board of Visitors' Executive and Building & Grounds Committee
in Richmond on January 24. Katherine Johnston presented the
proposed 1992-94 Capital Outlay Request and its schedule. The
request included the re-stated needs of projects previously approved
but have since been "frozen" due to economic downfall of the state.
Other items on the agenda included a report by Wayland Winstead on the
chronology of major events in the capital outlay planning process;
a request by David Kingston for funding support of Chemistry
Infill Phase II and a discussion on the role of the Building
Committee.
COMMUNICATION RESOURCE COMMISSION--G. Tront--no report
COMPUTER COMMITTEE--Senator Webster--9 Jan., 6 Feb. 91
1. Computing Center Announcements:
The walk-in consulting facility in Newman Library has been
closed.
PROFS has been enhanced to allow for E-mail addresses longer
than 8 characters.
The Center has acquired a TCP/IP package for MS/DOS machines.
This package can be used for communication via Internet,
Ethernet, Telnet.
2. Personal Computer Subcommittee Report. The subcommittee has
written a proposal for the Bookstore's policy on computer
pricing. This proposal is currently being reviewed by
Bookstore management.
3. Computer Capacity and Planning Subcommittee Report. The
subcommittee has developed a survey, which is being sent to key
mainframe computer users on campus. The primary purpose of this
survey is to determine future mainframe computer needs.
4. An ad hoc "Vision" subcommittee has been formed and charged
with writing a draft plan for the future of computer facilities at
Virginia Tech. Members of this committee are from the Computer
Committee, the Library Committee, and the Communication Resources
Committee.
5. VTCoSy is an electronic bulletin board that has been available
to students and supported by Communications Resources. CR will no
longer support this service and alternate support is being sought.
6. Two aspects of the ethical use of computers were discussed.
The Computing Center has prepared a draft policy concerning
security of electronic access privilege (i.e., passwords). Also,
the Computer Committee will be working with the Communications
Resources Committee to develop a more general policy on ethical
and appropriate use of computer systems.
Senators: Concern was expressed over the proposal to charge
faculty for off campus access to the computer. Rumor has it that
access IDs would cost $20 to $50 per month. Departments could
purchase group IDs to share. Why should we pay to have access to
campus?
Why charge different for voice or electronic transmission
access to campus?
Why is this item to be "metered" and not other items?
Senate is disenfranchised on Communication Resources Committee.
Why is cost recovery being mandated in this area?
Many professors use access late at night and early in the morning
from home to save on computer center charges. This policy
would discourage this use. Somebody has to pay. Access was
moved from computer center to CNN. CNN is on cost recovery.
But it becomes circular in terms of money. Why is there a limit
to 2400 when other places are at 9600.
Senate officers were directed to raise the issue with Mr. Ridenour.
This discussion is to be forwarded to the Senate representative on
CRC (Mr. Tront).
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE--Senator Thompson--no report
EO/AA COMMITTEE--Senator Simmons--12 Feb. 91
Announcements: The next classroom climate workshops, focusing on
the situation of blacks and women, will be 6 & 7 May. Another
workshop, on recruitment of minorities and women faculty and
administrators, is being planned.
The new Affirmative Action Grants Program elicited 29 proposals, 9
of which were funded for a total of $18,168.00. Most of the funded
projects target student recruitment. The next deadline for
proposals is 15 April; the committee hopes to receive more proposals
aimed at minority faculty recruitment, improvement of campus climate
for faculty and staff, and development of faculty, staff, and
administration.
The committee also heard a report on the Sexual Harrassment Policy,
whose second reading before University Council has been deferred;
a committee met this morning to consider revisions suggested by
CFA and others and hope to return the document to University Council
for its second reading soon. A second report concerning the
reception of the state Affirmative Action plan filed this summer;
the EO/AA office is currently working on the federal AA plan.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES COMMITTEE PATENTS--Senator Falkinham--no
report
LIBRARY COMMITTEE--J.D. Stahl--no report
SCHOLARSHIP & FINANCIAL AID COMMITTEE--R. Goss--no report
SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS COMMITTEE--Senator Barker--no report
PARKING/TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE--C. Polan--30 Nov. 90
Dr. Gary Hooper presented his views regarding parking privileges
for graduate students. His major point was that graduate students
contribute materially to the quality of teaching and research at
this University and in many instances are employees, but in parking
matters they are treated the same as undergraduates. This
matter will be considered further by the Committee.
The Committee discussed options for next years parking permits.
The suction cup has created a problem for PEO's to Locate because
it gives too many options for location in addition to the rear view
mirror. There was concurrence that a permit that can be transferred
among vehicles is still needed. An optional permanent affixed permit
will probably be available for those who prefer it and use only one
vehicle.
The speed grooves by Engel Hall were discussed. They were placed
there after discussion with the State Highway Engineers. The
appropriate University officials will discuss further with them any
alternative to control traffic on West Campus Drive.
FACULTY SENATE OF VIRGINIA--Senator Scanlon--no report
INTERIM BUDGET COMMITTEE--Senator Eng--23 Jan., 6 Feb. 91
CLASSIFIED STAFF AFFAIRS COMMITTEE--Senator Canestaro--7 Feb. 91
CSAC is discussing supporting a Virginia Governmental Employees
Association membership drive on campus. VGEA is open to faculty
and administrators, as well as staff. Membership in the lobbying
group has grown recently from 200 to 1000 members. Concerning the
organization of a Staff Senate, there are eight administrative areas.
These areas will receive presentations within the next month.
CSAC expects all colleges and administrative areas will be able to
elect representatives by mid-summer. The eight areas are:
Facilities, Business Affairs, Student Affairs, Information Systems,
General Administration, University Relations/Development, Academic
Affairs, and Research and Graduate Studies.
The Policies and Issues Subcommittee handed out a draft of the
Constitution and By-Laws for the staff membership to discuss.
BOARD OF VISITORS--Senator Eng--no report.
COMMENCEMENT--Senator Scanlon--no report.
HONORIFICS--Senator Scanlon for W.D. Conn--18 Jan. 91.
Thirteen (13) nomination packages for the SCHEV Outstanding Faculty
Teaching Awards were considered. The 13 nominations came from 4
Colleges. Seven (from 3 Colleges) were chosen for advancement to
SCHEV. It was noted that the number of awards has been reduced from
13 to 11 this year due to budget cuts.
STUDENT BUDGET BOARD--Senator Clowes--no report.
Student Budget Board is meeting to discuss funding of student
activities.
VPI FACILITIES BOARD--C. Polan--no report.
VIRGINIA TECH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES--Senator Eiss--31 Jan. 91
The VTIP board met January 31, 1991. A current financial report was
presented and a summary of disclosure activity was discussed.
During the last 3 months 36 disclosures were received, 17 are in the
patent process and most of the rest are being evaluated by VTIP or
CIT. Resumes of external candidates for the Board were discussed
and the Board voted to extend invitation to three of the candidates,
which if accepted, would bring the total number of directors to the
limit of 13. The Board meeting was followed by a workshop in which
the mission, goals, and objectives of VTIP were discussed.
OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS
FACULTY SUPPORT COMMITTEE--Senator Snoke.
We have 854 coded replies processed. We have started to interpret
the results and look at the individual comments.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS--none.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Senator Farkas addressed the senate concerning the work of the
governance task force and proposed changes in the governance process.
Senator Farkas asked that the discussion be off the record. The
Senate proceeded with a lengthy discussion of the aforesaid matter
off the record.
B. Proposed revision of the Faculty Review Committee (FRC)
Procedures and proposed changes to Faculty Handbook regarding FRC.
It was moved and seconded that the Senate adopt the revised
Procedures of the Faculty Review Committee (distributed at prior
Senate meeting).
Guests D. Hasselman and P. Rony were invited to present their
concerns to the Senate over the operation of the current system.
Several documents were submitted by Prof. Rony to the Senators. A
copy is attached to the Senate's permanent record.
Senate discussion and action follows.
Concern was expressed under 3(C) that two working days was an
inadequate time. Seven would be preferred. 4(A) should require
interrogatories and depositions to be made available to both
parties and that both parties not gain more information on the
phone. Are the panels investigatory or juries?
It was suggested that the issue be returned to CFA with written
comments from Prof. Hasselman and Rony. Motion to table was made
and withdrawn.
It was suggested that it is necessary to streamline the Committee
process now. The Senate should pass what is front of us and CFA
could respond to concerns with future amendments as appropriate.
The Senate has been operating under both the new and old procedures
by giving the faculty litigant the litigant's choice of procedure.
It was moved, seconded, and passed that the Senate postpone
indefinitely considerations of the matter.
The Senate then heard comments on the issue by Prof. Rony. Faculty
must have peace of mind that the faculty judicial procedure is
administered in a neutral, fair, timely and professional manner.
Concern over lack of accountability, no time limits on compliance
with FRC hearings, no penalty for administrators who cause delay and
different procedures for faculty and staff were outlined to the Senate.
Motions were made, seconded, and passed to refer both issues to CFA.
9. ADJOURNMENT
NEXT SENATE MEETING MARCH 5, 1991